GeForce MX250 vs FirePro 3D V8800
GeForce MX250
Popular choices:
FirePro 3D V8800
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - GPU
About G3D Mark
G3D Mark is a standard benchmark that measures graphics performance in real-world gaming scenarios. It simplifies comparing cards from different brands, where higher scores directly correlate with better fps and smoother gaming experiences.
Value Upgrade Path
This is the official ChipVERSUS Value Rating, comparing raw performance (G3D Mark) per dollar. Components placed above yours deliver better value for money. The GeForce MX250 is positioned at rank 291 and the FirePro 3D V8800 is on rank 312, so the GeForce MX250 offers better cost-efficiency for playing games.
Avg price is the current average price collected from markets across the web.
Performance Per Dollar GeForce MX250
Performance Per Dollar FirePro 3D V8800
Performance Comparison
About G3D Mark🏆 Chipversus Verdict
⚠️ Generational Difference
The GeForce MX250 is significantly newer (2019 vs 2010). The GeForce MX250 likely supports modern features like Ray Tracing, Tensor Cores, and DLSS/FSR upscaling, which act as force multipliers for performance. The FirePro 3D V8800 lacks this hardware feature set, limiting its longevity in modern titles despite any raw power similarities.
🚀 Performance Leadership
The FirePro 3D V8800 is the superior choice for raw performance. It leads with a 2.7% higher G3D Mark score. This advantage makes it significantly better for higher resolutions (1440p/4K) and graphic-intensive titles compared to the GeForce MX250.
| Insight | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | ❌Lower raw frame rates (-2.7%) | ✅Leading raw performance (+2.7%) |
| Longevity | Pascal (2016−2021) (14nm) | 🛑Obsolete Architecture (2010 / TeraScale 2 (2009−2015)) |
| Ecosystem | Supports FSR Upscaling | Supports FSR Upscaling |
| VRAM | ❌ Less VRAM capacity | ✅ More VRAM (+0%) |
| Efficiency | 💡 Excellent Perf/Watt | ⚡ Higher Power Consumption |
| Case Fit | — | Standard Size (267mm) |
💎 Value Proposition
The FirePro 3D V8800 offers a compelling cost-to-performance ratio. Priced at $30 versus $150 for the GeForce MX250, it costs 80% less. While it maintains basic entry-level capabilities, this results in a 413.3% higher cost efficiency score.
| Insight | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| Cost Efficiency | ❌Lower cost efficiency | ✅Better overall value (+413.3%) |
| Upfront Cost | ⚠️Higher upfront cost ($150) | ✅More affordable ($30) |
Performance Check
Real-world benchmarks and performance projections based on comprehensive hardware analysis and comparative metrics. Values represent expected performance on High/Ultra settings at 1080p, 1440p, and 4K. Modeled using a Ryzen 7 7800X3D reference profile to minimize specific CPU bottlenecks.
Note: Performance behavior can vary per game. Specific architectures may perform better or worse depending on game engine optimizations and API implementation.
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of GeForce MX250 and FirePro 3D V8800
GeForce MX250
The GeForce MX250 is manufactured by NVIDIA. It was released in February 20 2019. It features the Pascal architecture. The core clock ranges from 937 MHz to 1038 MHz. It has 384 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 10W. Manufactured using 14 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,375 points.
FirePro 3D V8800
The FirePro 3D V8800 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in April 26 2010. It features the TeraScale 2 architecture. The core clock speed is 690 MHz. It has 800 shading units. The thermal design power (TDP) is 74W. Manufactured using 40 nm process technology. G3D Mark benchmark score: 2,438 points. Launch price was $479.
Graphics Performance
The GeForce MX250 scores 2,375 and the FirePro 3D V8800 reaches 2,438 in the G3D Mark benchmark — just a 2.7% difference, making them near-identical in rasterization performance. The GeForce MX250 is built on Pascal while the FirePro 3D V8800 uses TeraScale 2, both on 14 nm vs 40 nm. Shader units: 384 (GeForce MX250) vs 800 (FirePro 3D V8800). Raw compute: 0.7972 TFLOPS (GeForce MX250) vs 1.104 TFLOPS (FirePro 3D V8800).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| G3D Mark Score | 2,375 | 2,438+3% |
| Architecture | Pascal | TeraScale 2 |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 40 nm |
| Shading Units | 384 | 800+108% |
| Compute (TFLOPS) | 0.7972 TFLOPS | 1.104 TFLOPS+38% |
| ROPs | 16 | 16 |
| TMUs | 24 | 40+67% |
| L1 Cache | 144 KB+80% | 80 KB |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Advanced Features (DLSS/FSR)
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| Upscaling Tech | FSR 1.0 (Software) | FSR 1.0 (Software) |
| Frame Generation | Not Supported | Not Supported |
| Ray Reconstruction | No | No |
| Low Latency | Standard | Standard |
Video Memory (VRAM)
Both cards feature 2 GB of GDDR5. Bus width: 64-bit vs 64-bit. L2 Cache: 512 KB (GeForce MX250) vs 256 KB (FirePro 3D V8800) — the GeForce MX250 has significantly larger on-die cache to reduce VRAM reliance.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| VRAM Capacity | 2 GB | 2 GB |
| Memory Type | GDDR5 | GDDR5 |
| Bus Width | 64-bit | 64-bit |
| L2 Cache | 512 KB+100% | 256 KB |
Display & API Support
DirectX support: 12 (12_1) (GeForce MX250) vs 11.2 (FirePro 3D V8800). Vulkan: 1.2 vs None. OpenGL: 4.6 vs 4.4. Maximum simultaneous displays: 3 vs 4.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| DirectX | 12 (12_1)+7% | 11.2 |
| Vulkan | 1.2 | None |
| OpenGL | 4.6+5% | 4.4 |
| Max Displays | 3 | 4+33% |
Media & Encoding
Hardware encoder: None (GeForce MX250) vs None (FirePro 3D V8800). Decoder: NVDEC 3rd Gen vs UVD 2.3. Supported codecs: H.264,H.265,VP9 (GeForce MX250) vs H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 (FirePro 3D V8800).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| Encoder | None | None |
| Decoder | NVDEC 3rd Gen | UVD 2.3 |
| Codecs | H.264,H.265,VP9 | H.264,VC-1,MPEG-2 |
Power & Dimensions
The GeForce MX250 draws 10W versus the FirePro 3D V8800's 74W — a 152.4% difference. The GeForce MX250 is more power-efficient. Recommended PSU: 350W (GeForce MX250) vs 350W (FirePro 3D V8800). Power connectors: Mobile vs PCIe-powered. Card length: 0mm vs 267mm, occupying 0 vs 2 slots. Typical load temperature: 75 vs 85.
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| TDP | 10W-86% | 74W |
| Recommended PSU | 350W | 350W |
| Power Connector | Mobile | PCIe-powered |
| Length | 0mm | 267mm |
| Height | 0mm | 111mm |
| Slots | 0-100% | 2 |
| Temp (Load) | 75-12% | 85 |
| Perf/Watt | 237.5+622% | 32.9 |
Value Analysis
The GeForce MX250 launched at $150 MSRP and currently averages $150, while the FirePro 3D V8800 launched at $1499 and now averages $30. The FirePro 3D V8800 costs 80% less ($120 savings) at current market prices. Performance per dollar (G3D Mark / price): 15.8 (GeForce MX250) vs 81.3 (FirePro 3D V8800) — the FirePro 3D V8800 offers 414.6% better value. The GeForce MX250 is the newer GPU (2019 vs 2010).
| Feature | GeForce MX250 | FirePro 3D V8800 |
|---|---|---|
| MSRP | $150-90% | $1499 |
| Avg Price (30d) | $150 | $30-80% |
| Performance per Dollar | 15.8 | 81.3+415% |
| Codename | GP108B | Juniper |
| Release | February 20 2019 | April 26 2010 |
| Ranking | #643 | #780 |
Top Performing GPUs
The most powerful gpus ranked by G3D Mark benchmark scores.
You May Also Compare
Similar GPU comparisons based on GeForce MX250 and FirePro 3D V8800
